Dear All,

What do you think of these new people who are claiming that they are helping Homoeopathy and are different from original philosophy or not. Is there any thing new?

There is some thought provoking substance in it.
Innit?

People:

Rajan S
George V
Egyga
Murphy
etc, etc

__________________
Dr. Shashi Roy
"Sarve Santoo NirAamyah"<br />"Sarve Bhavantoo Sukhinaam"<br /><br />Best Regards<br /><br />Shashi Roy

Hi Shashi
it is important to look at all those ''new'' ideas carefully and in detail, and see ,if they fulfill all the points of the homeopathic method. this determins their validity in homeopathy. Some of the newer methodes clearly lack the apects shown in par.:144 and 106(Organon 6th ed.) and therefor had to be disregarded.
It is not the result what someone claims to have had, which makes the method promoted homeopathic.

__________________
cure by symptom similarity!<br /><a href="http://www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/" target="_blank">www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/</a>

Hi Hans,

This is very interesting. is it not?, that people come up with different angle according to their own psyche & their own conception, leaving the time tested principles and claiming that it is kind of new thing, which is bothering new students, who do not have masters or teachers who have good grounding in the basic principles.

[ 02 July 2001: Message edited by: Shashi Roy ]

__________________
Dr. Shashi Roy
"Sarve Santoo NirAamyah"<br />"Sarve Bhavantoo Sukhinaam"<br /><br />Best Regards<br /><br />Shashi Roy

it is all about choices--
there can be as many ideas as homeopaths, still the method is defined in the organon, provided we agree, that we take the Organon + the book of the chronic diseases as the basis of homeopathy.(which i do!)
I expect of a 'teatcher' of homeopathy to know this, and to outline to the student, where modern''Homeopaths'', leave the principals behind, so that the student has the choice, to either be on the save side, or to be experimental=alleopathic.
i personally, as a patient would like to be asked, if i would partake in a trail , while I am sick, or rather be treated alongside scientific lines.
Greetings from Irland, Hans

__________________
cure by symptom similarity!<br /><a href="http://www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/" target="_blank">www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/</a>

I don't feel this is a simple black-and-white issue. In the Links millenium issue George Vithoulkas leveled the charge that Sankaran, Scholten and Scherr (among others) were destroying homeopathy because they were allegedly not using classical approaches.

Earlier in his career, Vithoulkas himself had been criticized for the same reasons.

As anyone who receives Links can attest, the next few issues contained a storm of controversy in the letters to the editor. The responses from the homeopaths in question were articulate, and demonstrate the complexity of the issues raised.

When we gain a fuller understanding of even the polychrests which Hahnemann proved, it doesn't mean the fundamental qualities of those remedies has changed. I feel the same way about exploring the ideas of Sankaran, Scholten, Scherr, etc. Are they something to be feared? Are they 'destroying' homeopathy? I don't believe so. Sankaran has been around classical homeopathy his entire life, and my understanding is Scholten mainly used polychrest remedies for close to 15 years before developing his theories (and he has always qualified his ideas as theories.)

The fact that these individuals have tried to synthesize their experience and knowledge in new ways is not the same as abandoning classical approaches for simplistic thinking. Their responses (in Links) to these charges help to clarify their perspectives, and I feel are well worth reading.

Dear David, Hans, Jvolkman,

Thanks very much for encouraging thoughts to have good grounding in basics.

Just in case someone misunderstood my comments
It is not the question of distruction of homeopathy, nor to be against or for ideas.
the problem starts, if they call things homeopathic and at a closer look, they are not.
I repeat here, what I said elsewhere:
These new therapies, even they might look similar to homeopathy in certain aspects, should be named after thier creators. And indeed, there have been homeopaths in the past, who had the personal integrety to do this like Robert Bach (Bach flour remedies), or Schuesseler (tissue salts).
I am missing this sound attitude in some of the contemporates, who instead jump the bandwagon by saying that this what they promote is the homeophatic methode and therefore taking credit from the sucesses of the real homeopaths.
it is well to keep in mind what Hahnemann said:COPY THE METHOD,BUT COPY IT EXACTLY.
Greetings from Irland, Hans

__________________
cure by symptom similarity!<br /><a href="http://www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/" target="_blank">www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/</a>

Hi Hans,

which Aphorism was that?

__________________
Dr. Shashi Roy
"Sarve Santoo NirAamyah"<br />"Sarve Bhavantoo Sukhinaam"<br /><br />Best Regards<br /><br />Shashi Roy

I agree with Hans.Before hahnemann the MM consists of imagination(doctorine of signatura etc).Now again the imaginations and delusions overtakes the patient's symptoms.Every participant of the semiar after taking one dose at bed time begin to dream,even not take that medicine!(rajan's seminar).
Apart from noting the sighs and symptoms,the main business now is bending the rubrics and imagination over the rubrics.
But Rajan has gifted mind also .But every one cannot be the same.So I like our maste's direct method tha n the indirect methods now.
Hans,the aphorism you mentioned is fine.

__________________
<a href="http://www.pannakkal.com" target="_blank">www.pannakkal.com</a>

What did Hahnemann mean in Aph. 9 when he wrote 'In the healthy human state. . .our indwelling, rational spirit can freely avail itself of this living, healthy instrument for the higher purposes of our existence.'?